A banner near the Walloon parliament during a debate on the EU-Canada trade deal.
Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images

I could never have imagined it. That an economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada could turn into a soap opera involving a small region of Belgium. Yet that’s what happened: for two weeks, a four-letter word, Ceta, resonated on factory floors and offices, in homes, schools and cafes the length and breadth of Wallonia, the region I have the privilege to be president of, as our parliament delayed the deal.

The lesson from tiny Wallonia – there is a way to prevent hard Brexit | Simon Jenkins

Read more

So are the people of Wallonia now dreaming of a closed world, where boundaries and borders can be rebuilt? Are they the European counterparts of those US citizens who voted for Donald Trump, hoping that the billionaire, who opposes TTIP and other trade deals would counter the effects of international trade on their jobs and salaries?

I don’t think the parallels are helpful in understanding the mood in Wallonia. The revolt in this post-industrial region was sparked first and foremost by the attitude of the EU institutions. Trade is an area in which the EU, not the member governments, has exclusive legal powers, but this new generation of international trade treaties goes far beyond trade. They affect, at least potentially, very sensitive national and regional competences (labour, health and environmental laws, public services and social protection, local agriculture …). The European commission should have understood that treaties with such wide-ranging effects would not leave public opinion in the nations and regions indifferent.

In Wallonia (which with 3.5 million inhabitants is still larger than the seven smallest member states of the EU), civil society organisations first alerted politicians to the dangers of TTIP and Ceta at a very early stage. And they were listened to. The parliament of Wallonia, with the same constitutional international powers as a national parliament, decided to take up the issue, and the government that I lead committed itself to defending its resolutions.

Thus, a year ago, I knocked on the door of the EU commissioner for trade to express our concerns. Very courteously, Cecilia Malmström came to answer our parliamentarians’ questions, probably considering that such democratic accountability would silence any challenge. This did not happen. Throughout the months that followed, the mobilisation of civil society gained momentum, members of the Walloon parliament gained confidence, and I began to understand (and explain to our Canadian friends) that without a different European approach, a political confrontation would be inevitable.

Faced with Belgium’s refusal to sign a trade deal, for the first time in its history, the EU commission negotiated directly with a region. And under pressure from the citizens of Wallonia, it agreed that the EU-Canada deal should be accompanied by a legally binding interpretative instrument that clarifies and completes the treaty on key issues (including the radical rejection of any private arbitration mechanism).

Despite repeated threats and ultimatums from Donald Tusk, president of the EU council, the Europe-Canada summit – fixed in the calendar for nearly a year – had to be postponed.

We did not fight for local interests, but for principles

We did not seek this confrontation, we only listened to the legitimate fears of the people, given voice by an active civil society and the rights of their regional parliament. We did not fight for local interests, but for principles – which are widely shared beyond our little region – and Europe as a whole will benefit from the assurances that we have obtained.

Ceta is not the worst treaty of its kind (in terms of compliance with social and environmental standards, it is perhaps one of the most advanced). But our citizens increasingly doubt the virtues of international trade, not just because they are close-minded protectionists, as claimed by free trade fanatics. Citizens do not dream of autarky (where nations rely only on the goods they themselves produce), but they wonder if it is reasonable to import beef from the other side of the Atlantic when we are at the same time supposed to be fighting global warming.

That such an obscure topic as an economic and trade agreement should be the subject of such popular debate and controversy is a phenomenon in itself. People fear that under the pretext of protecting investments, multinationals are attacking legislation that was enacted to protect public health, public services and the environment.

When McDonald’s sues the city of Florence for denying it the right to open a fast food restaurant at the foot of the Renaissance cathedral, that seems symbolic of the boundless arrogance of global multinationals and explains why so many people around Europe feel antipathy to their behaviour.

Being the only region in Europe to stand up in this way has made it a very difficult tug of war, and it could have cost us as a small region dearly. This is why we sincerely hope that others in Europe share our commitment. We hope that, as a result of our action, Europe will never be able to negotiate trade treaties as it did before.

Brussels must understand that if we want to reconcile the EU with its citizens and avoid another Brexit, we must listen to this desire for a world where not everything is left to trade. We must understand that a Europe that is transparent and accountable to its citizens is stronger than ever.